VARSHRAJ EXPORTS P.LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO 8(3)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 6405/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2456 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 13-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 17-10-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAILASH GAIKWAD
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (AM) I.T.A. NO. 6405 /MUM/ 20 1 4 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 1 0 - 11 ) M/S. VARSHRAJ EXPORTS P. LTD. 90, DIAMOND MANSION 366/68, KALBADEVI ROAD 4 TH FLOOR MUMBAI - 400 002. VS. ITO 8( 3)(4) AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) PAN NO . AAACV4644E ASSESSEE BY NONE DEPARTMENT BY SHRI KAILASH GAIKWAD DATE OF HEARING 13.10 . 201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 13 .10. 201 6 O R D E R THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.7.2014 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) - 18, MUMBAI AND IT RELATES TO A.Y. 2010 - 11. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE EVEN THOUGH NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT BY RPAD WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, I PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL EX - PARTE, WITHOUT PRESENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE ONLY ISSUE URGED IN THIS APPEAL IS RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION CLAIMED ON THE PROPERTY LET OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. I HEARD LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND P ERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE OWNED TWO PROPERTIES , VIZ., ONE AT ANDHERI AND ANOTHER ONE AT VAPI. THE ASSESSEE HAD LET OUT BOTH THE PROPERTIES TO THIRD PART IES . THE RENTAL INCOME WAS ORIGINALLY DISCLOSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND DEDUCTION @ 30% U/S. 24 WAS ALSO CLAIMED. HOWEVER, DURING THE COURSE OF V ARSHRAJ EXPORTS PVT.LTD. 2 ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE REQUESTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ASSESS THE RENTAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND ACCORDINGLY REQUESTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW DEP RECIATION ON THE PROPERTIES. THE SAME WAS REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. I NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIAT ION ON BOTH THE PROPERTIES IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL . HOWEVER, ASSESSMENT OF RENTAL INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY HAS BEEN A CCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE . THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY DISPUTE THAT THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY IS REQUIRED TO BE COMPUTED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND THE STATUTE DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR ALLOWING DEPRECIATION WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. I NOTICE THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS BROUGHT OUT THIS LEGAL P OSITION IN HIS ORDER AND ACCORDINGLY REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SAID LEGAL POSITION, I DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT(A). 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER HAS BE EN PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 13 .10 .2016 SD/ - (B.R.BASKARAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 13 / 10 / 20 1 6 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI PS